Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal: IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Fri Mar 16 10:20:07 UTC 2007
Quick explanation about the two main changes (other changes are mainly
cosmetic and/or reflecting the "consensus" that we have perceived in the
list):
A) This policy is intended for organizations. If we use end-user, a
residential customer could justify the need. I think using
end-user-organizations as in my original policy, avoids that and clarify the
intend.
B) Some organizations may need IPv6 PI not for providing public services and
I think is fair to accept that alternative usages of addresses are possible,
always in-scope of the function of the RIR.
I hope everybody agree with those changes.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Vincent Ngundi <vincent at kenic.or.ke>
> Responder a: <vincent at kenic.or.ke>
> Fecha: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:05:40 +0300
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>, AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
> <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Asunto: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal:
> IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
>
> Hi Colleagues,
>
> I'm sending a copy of Jordi's amendments to the draft policy I
> proposed for your consideration.
>
> Kindly note that the points he intends to alter are as follows:
>
> (a) changing the word "end-user(s)" to "end-user-organisation(s)"
>
> (b) changing the assignment target from provides of "Public Internet
> services" to providers of "services" thus;
>
> "End-sites which provide Public Internet services for a single
> administrative organisations' network, regardless of their size."
>
> to
>
> "End-sites which provide services for a single administrative
> organisations' network, regardless of their size."
>
> (c) There should be no need for assigning a prefix longer than /48;
> thus a minimum assignment of a /48 or a shorter prefix if AfriNIC
> deems there's justification.
>
> Kindly review the draft (below) and post your comments on whether we
> need to incorporate the changes or not.
>
> <jordi>
>
> **************
>
> Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations
>
> Incentive: The current policy does not allow IPv6 provider
> independent (PI)
> address assignment to any 'end-user-organizations'. In addition, lack of
> IPv6 transport will compel many 'end-user-organizations' to tunnel.
> Thus, to
> avoid renumbering when IPv6 transport will be available, a provider
> independent assignment seems a reasonable need. More over, not all LIR's
> have IPv6 address space allocations. This makes it impossible for
> end-user-organizations to get PA IPv6 address space from such upstreams
> (LIR's). This policy is also aimed at providing IPv6 address space to
> such
> end-user-organizations as long as they already have or qualify to get PI
> IPv4 addresses.
>
> Introduction
> This policy allows 'end-user-organizations' to be assigned IPv6 provider
> independent (PI) addresses. 'End-user-organizations' include End-
> Users who
> already have or qualify to get IPv4 PI addresses and critical
> Infrastructure
> providers such as, but not limited to, TLD or root server operators and
> public Internet eXchange Points (IXP's).
>
> Current Situation
> AfriNIC has discussed similar proposals recently during it's last two
> Open
> Policy meetings but both proposals have been returned to the public
> mailing
> lists for further discussion due to lack of consensus. This proposal
> try to
> put together the previous proposals and the inputs received from the
> community in order to achieve consensus.
>
> Details
> (1) Assignment target:
> End-user-organizations which provide services for a single
> administrative
> organizations' network, regardless of their size.
>
> (2) Assignment criteria:
> * The end-user-organization must not be an IPv6 LIR
> * The end-user-organization must become an AfriNIC End User Member
> and pay
> the normal AfriNIC fee for its' membership category
> * The end-user-organization must either:
> - be a holder of IPv4 PI address space or
> - qualify for an IPv4 PI assignment from AfriNIC under the IPv4
> policy
> currently in effect.
> * The end-user-organization must justify the need for the IPv6 PI
> address
> space.
> * The 'end-user-organization' must show a plan to use and announce
> the IPv6
> provider independent address space within twelve (12) months. After that
> period, if not announced, the assigned IPv6 PI address space should be
> reclaimed and returned to the free pool by AfriNIC.
>
> (3) Provider Independent (PI) address space:
> * The provider independent (PI) assignment should be made from a
> specified
> contiguous super-block, to be defined by AfriNIC.
> * The initial provider independent assignment size to an end-site
> should be
> a /48. However a shorter prefix will be assigned by AfriNIC if the
> need is
> justified (examples of this need may be bigger address block required,
> filtering issues, etc.).
>
> Effect on AfriNIC
> No direct effect on the existing AfriNIC members, nor changes to the
> current
> IPv6 allocation criteria.
>
> **************
>
> Some notes for your clarification:
>
> Note that I'm using end-user-organizations, the reason for that is
> because
> it opens the spectrum of cases that may apply for this policy. It
> seems the
> same, but is not. We had long discussions about this in other regions
> also
> ...
>
> I removed "Public Internet services" because it may limit the scope.
> Some
> organizations may require PI even if they don't provide services
> (example a
> bank).
>
> I've done also some other minor changes across the text, mainly esthetic
> issues.
>
> </jordi>
>
> -v
>
> On Mar 14, 2007, at 10:26 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Is not *another* proposal. My proposal was there for long time ago,
>> and
>> didn't passed the previous round, so I was working in updating it
>> with the
>> inputs received during the meeting, in the list and off-line.
>>
>> So the 2nd one was the one that we are discussing now :-)
>>
>> What I'm precisely saying is that instead of having two proposals,
>> we should
>> withdraw one of them (and I offered to do so with the one I
>> submitted, even
>> if that one was there before) and try to combine the inputs in just
>> one. But
>> of course, this will work only if Vincent agree in my comments
>> (which I
>> think are reflecting the discussions/inputs received since long
>> time ago for
>> BOTH proposals).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> De: Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za>
>>> Responder a: <aa at tenet.ac.za>
>>> Fecha: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:10:35 +0200
>>> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>, 'AfriNIC Resource Policy
>>> Discussion List'
>>> <rpd at afrinic.net>
>>> Asunto: RE: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy
>>> Proposal:
>>> IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
>>>
>>> Hi Jordi,
>>>
>>> I'm actually really really against coming up with ANOTHER
>>> proposal. With
>>> the urgency involved in getting action on this policy (considering
>>> that we
>>> have been debating this since mid 2005), another proposal will
>>> mean that yet
>>> again there will be no vote and no action in Nigeria in a few weeks.
>>> Please, lets hammer out with what we have and see if we can find an
>>> agreement that can be voted on and either outright rejected or
>>> passed at the
>>> next meeting!
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On
>>> Behalf Of
>>> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:34 PM
>>> To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
>>> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy
>>> Proposal:
>>> IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
>>>
>>> Hi Vincent, all,
>>>
>>> I was considering withdrawing my PI proposal and instead agree
>>> with you in a
>>> common text among us, in order to push for a single proposal with
>>> may be
>>> easier, hopefully, to adopt by everybody. However, I think there
>>> are some
>>> points that could make this not feasible.
>>>
>>> Basically, in my proposal, people was concerned about:
>>>
>>> 1) Making it temporary (so I'm happy to remove that, as clearly
>>> all the
>>> policies are somehow subjected to a change).
>>>
>>> 2) Using a /48 as a starting point (but not a longer prefix),
>>> instead of
>>> /32. Basically my idea is to allow the hostmaster to decide if the
>>> requester
>>> can work with a /48 (example an IXP), may be others if there are no
>>> filtering problems, but allow them to allocate a /32 if needed (or
>>> anything
>>> in the middle (hopefully not !)), for example if there are filtering
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> But your proposal seems to be targeted ONLY to critical
>>> infrastructures (so
>>> the tittle of the proposal should be also modified if I'm
>>> correct), and
>>> that's wrong if you consider as critical infrastructures ONLY
>>> IXPs, TLDs,
>>> etc. What about a data center or any enterprise with may be (or not)
>>> multihomed ?
>>>
>>> Remember that those entities CANN't become an LIR (I think your
>>> point c
>>> below is wrong on this), because they do not provide services to
>>> external
>>> customers (other entities).
>>>
>>> So if you agree in "re-orienting" your proposal (I can work
>>> tonight on your
>>> text to provide you a draft and agree among us before sending to
>>> the list),
>>> in order to cover all PI cases, and not just critical
>>> infrastructures, then
>>> I guess we can make a better job instead of having two "competing"
>>> proposals.
>>>
>>> What do you think ?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jordi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> De: Vincent Ngundi <vincent at kenic.or.ke>
>>>> Responder a: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
>>>> <rpd at afrinic.net>
>>>> Fecha: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:10:20 +0300
>>>> Para: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
>>>> Asunto: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy
>>>> Proposal:
>>>> IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
>>>>
>>>> Hi Hytham,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your comment/input.
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 13, 2007, at 7:55 PM, Hytham EL Nakhal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Vincent,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to discuss something may be get benefits of all
>>>>> suggestions regarding PI assignment, What about dedicating a /32
>>>>> for PI assignments, and each PI is /48 , so we have 2 to the power
>>>>> 16 PI assignments (i.e. 65536 /48 PI blocks). AfriNIC provide
>>>>> services for Africa Continent which contains about 55 countries. So
>>>>> if we divide PI blocks equally over countries we find that each
>>>>> country will have more than 1190 PI blocks, "Is it enough for each
>>>>> country" ? to know the answer we can have a look on the number of
>>>>> IPv4 PI assignments for each country in database (keeping in mind
>>>>> that /48 IPv6 block has addresses more more than /24 IPv4).
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we can make all /48 PI assignments from a dedicated /32 block
>>>>> and in same time we can arrange for a serial /48 blocks for each
>>>>> country and inside each country we can keep a guard band for each
>>>>> PI assignment in case of future growth.
>>>> This is a very nice suggestion.
>>>>
>>>> (a) IMHO, though a /32 is not as large a space as the numbers may
>>>> insinuate, with proper usage of assigned /48 prefixes, we can
>>>> greatly
>>>> minimise the need for preserving a /32 for every /48 assigned.
>>>>
>>>> (b) On the other hand, we need to consider the needs/demand for IP
>>>> from the different countries in the AfriNIC region; it's not
>>>> proportionate.
>>>>
>>>> (c) It's however worth noting that end-users with a high demand
>>>> (>> /
>>>> 48) for v6 space can always become an LIR or acquire the same
>>>> from an
>>>> LIR. Let's not forget that the primary objective of this policy
>>>> is to
>>>> provide PI v6 for critical infrastructure providers.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see what others have to say about this.
>>>>
>>>> -v
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Haitham..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net on behalf of Vincent Ngundi
>>>>> Sent: Tue 3/13/2007 3:51 PM
>>>>> To: Resource Policy Discussion List
>>>>> Cc: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List
>>>>> Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy
>>>>> Proposal: IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Below is a summary of the above policy as per the discussions we
>>>>> have had so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, we have the following arguments:
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) Andrew Levin (30.01.2007)
>>>>> proposed that we should not assign prefixes < /48 due to concerns
>>>>> about the global routing table
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) Frank Habitcht (30.01.2007)
>>>>> was in agreement that there was need for PI assignments < /48
>>>>> especially in the case of IXP's since the prefix would not appear
>>>>> in the global routing table.
>>>>>
>>>>> (c) Mark Elkins (01.02.2007)
>>>>> Suggested that each /48 assignment should be made from a unique /32
>>>>> (which should be preserved to accommodate growth)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> From the above points:
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) above seems to have outweighed (a) above and as such we should
>>>>> allow for the assignment prefixes < /48 as per the draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> as for (c) above, organisations which require >= /32 should become
>>>>> an LIR.
>>>>>
>>>>> In conclusion, it seems that the draft policy should remain as
>>>>> it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently statistics:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Yea (those in support of the policy) : 6
>>>>> * Nay (those _not in support of the policy) : 1
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, I wish to encourage more members of the community to give
>>>>> their views on this policy, or at least indicate whether they are
>>>>> in favour of it or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Abuja is only 5 weeks away!
>>>>>
>>>>> -v
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 30, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Andrew Alston wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Vincent,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm ok with all of this except for the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * The intial provider independent assignment size to an end-site
>>>>> should be a /48, or a shorter/longer prefix if the end-site can
>>>>> justify it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy with /48s, I'm even happier with bigger blocks, but
>>>>> there should *NEVER* be a situation where the block is smaller than
>>>>> this in the global routing tables. If the blocks can ever be
>>>>> smaller than /48 in size it is going to create major BGP filtering
>>>>> headaches.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can this wording be clarified?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Many Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Alston
>>>>>
>>>>> TENET - Chief Technology Officer
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> resource-policy mailing list
>>>>> resource-policy at afrinic.net
>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/resource-policy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <winmail.dat>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rpd mailing list
>>>>> rpd at afrinic.net
>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rpd mailing list
>>>> rpd at afrinic.net
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **********************************************
>>> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>>>
>>> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
>>> http://www.ipv6day.org
>>>
>>> This electronic message contains information which may be
>>> privileged or
>>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
>>> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient
>>> be aware
>>> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
>>> of this
>>> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rpd mailing list
>>> rpd at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>>
>> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
>> http://www.ipv6day.org
>>
>> This electronic message contains information which may be
>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for
>> the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the
>> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, including
>> attached files, is prohibited.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>>
>
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
More information about the RPD
mailing list